Author

Tag Archives: Director of National Intelligence

After reading several new articles and dozens of status updates, you know a little about what I’ve been doing this week. In order to provide you a more-thorough look at what I’ve bee up to, I offer this weekly recap for the first seven days of November 2015.

Is it just me or does Butters, my office assistant, have hair like Donald Trump?

On a lighter note nestled among several football- and cat-related items, I asked readers to take a look at a photo (top of page above) and answer a question — “Is it just me or does Butters, my office assistant, have hair like Donald Trump?”

Monday, Nov. 2

On Monday, I was engaged in research and, as a result, posted no new articles. I did, however, share several items on my Facebook page. For instance, I recalled how, on that day three years earlier, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction had issued two new reports about the situation in that country and how, in 2012, I had reached one conclusion about the contents of those reports: “A quick review of the two reports seems to indicate things are not only going downhill in this war-torn country, but they’re going downhill fast.” I closed my Facebook update by writing, “I don’t do this often, but I’ll do it today: ‘I told you so!'”

Tuesday, Nov. 3

Under the Tuesday headline, Help Find World War II Hero by Veterans Day, I shared details about an effort to locate a World War II Soldier whose likeness was captured in a portrait drawn by one of his German prisoners of war. Click here or on the portrait to read the article, realizing we now have only four days remaining to find him by Veterans Day.

Do you know the name of the American World War II Soldier shown in this sketch drawn by one of the German prisoners of war for whom he was responsible? If so, contact me.

On my Facebook pageTuesday, I lamented the loss of daylight hours and how I had decided to tackle it by changing up my exercise routine by adding a pre-breakfast workout in case I didn’t make it to my favorite lake before darkness fell. I explained how the “change” began at 5:30 a.m. and involved walking one mile and running one mile while listening to Twenty-One Pilots. “Who?” you say. My youngest son went to their concert over the weekend, so I decided I should find out the answer to that question, too. While their music is better than their photo, their songs are probably not gonna be among my first jukebox choices.

Also on my Facebook page, I noted an ABC News report about Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. speculating that ISIS might have brought down the Russian passenger jet Saturday. In response, I wrote, “I’m sure they did not,” before explaining that my opinion was based on why I uncovered during the four years I spent investigating things with Clapper’s “fingerprints” all over them — things you can read about in my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo.

“Very interesting. Answers? I have none.” I used those words to describe the content of a NASA video (above) captured by astronauts on the International Space Station Oct. 29. What do you think about this item I shared on my Facebook page?

Wednesday, Nov. 4

i offered a sarcastic call for “KNIFE CONTROL NOW!” after coming across this CNN report about a stabbing incident at the University of California-Merced. FYI: The perpetrator involved in the stabbings was Faisal Mohammad, an 18-year-old who wrote a two-page manifesto, according to another CNN report. Sadly, Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke was reluctant to describe the incident as anything but “a teenage boy that got upset with fellow classmates and took it to the extreme.” Really?

Thursday, Nov. 5

On Thursday, I shared a message received from the wife of a military man who was wrongly accused and convicted of sexual assault by a woman, whom I later discovered had made similar allegations against two other ex-husbands. Read her chilling message under the headline, Wife Offers Details About Wrongly-Accused Husband’s Case.

On my Facebook page, I shared another political jab — this one aimed at Hillary Clinton. “I think Hillary Clinton should apply to become the first female former first lady to fly in space,” I wrote while introducing a link to the NASA webpage where she could apply. “She can run for president after she returns from Mars with an accomplishment on her resume.”

In another status update that day, I shared details about Haitians lambasting the American Red Cross for spending so little out of the half-billion dollars in donations it has received since earthquakes ravaged the island nation in 2010. Not surprised by the claim, I went to the ARC website for the “Haiti Assistance Program” and looked at the numbers ARC is touting:

In other words, many dirt-poor Haitians have waited 5 years for help while ARC sits on a “nest egg” of $275,000. That prompted me to ask, “Can anyone say special prosecutor?”

Friday, Nov. 6

The most important thing I did Friday involved mailing a letter to the National Archives at St. Louis. In it, I requested information about a former Army Soldier who, I’ve been told, lives an active life and works full time despite receiving benefits while categorized as “100 percent disabled.” His wife, a basic training washout, also reportedly collects benefits after being diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of something that happened during her three days in the military. What might have caused her issues? Stay tuned for updates.

Saturday, Nov. 7

Today, I will enjoy the sunshine and exercise a bit before settling in to watch my Oklahoma State Cowboys, #10 in the coaches poll, defeat Texas Christian University, #3 in the same poll. They play at 2:30 p.m. Central on Lewis Field, inside the confines of T. Boone Pickens Stadium in Stillwater, Okla. GO POKES!

Thanks in advance for reading and sharing the articles above and those to follow. You can show your support and help keep these articles coming by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. To learn how to order signed copies, click here.

Raised during an interview with CNN’s John Berman Monday, Dr. Carson’s concerns came, much like mine did, less than 48 hours after President Barack Obama announced the United States will welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement over the next 12 months. Now, I’m left wondering if he read the article I published yesterday. But I digress. UPDATE 9/16/2015 at 4:01 p.m. Central: It turns out that the president is going to allow 10,000 more than originally planned. For details, see this Bloomberg report published today.

If you have a close or direct connection to Dr. Carson’s campaign team, please let me know. I’d love to send him a copy of my second nonfiction book,The Clapper Memo, or meet with members of his team to bring them up to date on the proven vetting technology discussed in the book.

The technology discussed in The Clapper Memo was proven highly accurate and effective in places like Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq before it was unceremoniously banned by the powers that be inside the Department of Defense, including James R. Clapper Jr., the man now serving as director of National Intelligence. It’s now being used by more state and local law enforcement agencies than any other, including polygraph. And it shouldmust be used on every prospective refugee trying to enter the country, regardless of their country of origin.

Over the weekend, President Barack Obama announced the United States will welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement over the next 12 months. Now, sane Americans must wonder how government officials will screen out terrorists among the refugees entering the country through refugee processing centers in almost every state.

This U.S. Department of State map shows where refugees, including those from Syria, will be sent.

The transcript of a State Department background briefing for reporters Sept. 9 offers some clues about how those ostensibly in charge of the nation’s foreign affairs programs — including Secretary of State John “F’n” Kerry and other left-wing political appointees — plan to ensure no members of the Islamic State and other Islamic terror groups enter the United States under the guise of being refugees. Michael Gordon of The New York Times asked the first question:

“Could you tell us, please, what the range of numbers is? You say you want to – the Secretary wants to increase the number of refugees that are admitted, so what is the range you’re looking at and what does that cost? And then it seems that part of the problem is vetting, in that the UN has submitted a list but it takes a long time to vet these people. Are you looking at committing more resources to speed up that vetting process? Thank you.”

As someone who spent four years investigating the federal government’s use of so-called credibility assessment technologies in places like Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, I’m more aware than most of the capabilities that exist within our defense and intelligence agencies for conducting background checks and vetting (a.k.a., “screening”) foreign nationals. That awareness makes me more than a bit interested in the response of an unidentified “senior State Department official” to Gordon’s question. It appears below with acronyms deciphered by yours truly:

“The Secretary talked about a range of different numbers, but I will not be sharing them with you today. And there was varying views within the group from the judiciary committees of the House and Senate about how receptive they were to increasing the numbers of refugees coming.

“And the process to bring refugees here is careful and deliberate, and that’s – as a result, it takes a while. It takes between 18 to 24 months between when a refugee is referred to us and when they – if approved, when they end up arriving in the United States. And a big reason for this is the care that’s put into the security vetting for them. It involves several aspects. Part of it is that every refugee has their sort of case file put together with help from organizations that we fund overseas, and then those files and the refugees’ families themselves are interviewed by someone from the Department of Homeland Security, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And then we also check their names against a whole series of U.S. Government databases to make sure that they’re not already in there – some sort of derogatory information about them.

“What we’re trying to do is weed out people who are liars, who are criminals, or would-be terrorists. And this is something that slows down the process and it’s taken very seriously by everyone involved in it.”

The response, especially the description of the security vetting process having “several aspects” and being “careful and deliberate,” reminds me of what I was told repeatedly over a period of several months in 2012 by U.S. military public affairs officers speaking on behalf of the now-defunct International Security Assistance Force, precursor to the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. An excerpt from a July 12, 2012, statement appears below:

“We (ISAF) have today, just as we discussed back in April, advise the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in assisting them to develop improvements to the overall vetting and recruitment process for the ANSF. The 8-step vetting process, which we have discussed in the past, is the result of our advising on this issue. Just like everything else that we (ISAF) advise on in Afghanistan, it is an ongoing and continuous process. We continually advise our Afghan partners on ways to improve processes. Again, the Afghans have the lead and are responsible for vetting their recruits into their security forces.”

Two months after receiving the statement above via email, I learned Afghans had not been in charge of all of the vetting taking place in that country. Instead, U.S. Army personnel were doing much of the vetting and, by September 2012, had grown “increasingly frustrated” with the eight-step vetting process that turned out to be largely ineffective at stopping so-called “Green-on-Blue” or “Insider” attacks, the often-deadly surprise attacks waged against U.S. and coalition forces by allegedly-trustworthy Afghans wearing the uniforms of Afghan military, police or security agencies.

If federal government officials are not willing to subject Syrian refugees to the same highly-effective interrogation technology that was used to interrogate members of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle (a.k.a., “The Deck of Cards”) as well as hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and other detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere around the world, then we might as well plan to see a significant increase in the number of terror attacks waged on U.S. soil.

Click on image above to order a copy of The Clapper Memo by Bob McCarty.

To learn more about the no-touch, no-torture, no-pain non-polygraph interrogation technology that was used with great success before its use by Department of Defense personnel was banned in October 2007 by James R. Clapper Jr., then Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and now Director of National Intelligence (i.e., nation’s top intelligence official), visit TheClapperMemo.com. There, you’ll find an overview of my second nonfiction book,The Clapper Memo, as well as several stellar endorsements the book has received. FYI: You’ll also be able to order a copy of the book!

How many more Aldrich Ames and Edward Snowden types are lurking among the millions of people who hold U.S. Government security clearances, vulnerable to blackmail as a result of their involvement in the AshleyMadison.com data breach?

If you haven’t heard of AshleyMadison (dot) com, let me offer some background information borrowed from Wired.com’s article published Tuesday:

“Ashley Madison is the most famous name in infidelity and married dating,” the site asserts on its homepage. “Have an Affair today on Ashley Madison. Thousands of cheating wives and cheating husbands signup everyday looking for an affair…. With Our affair guarantee package we guarantee you will find the perfect affair partner.”

While serving as an Air Force public affairs officer and possessing such a clearance during the last few years of the Cold War, I was regularly reminded of the types of behavior and activities that could prevent a person from obtaining or maintaining his security clearance. Atop the list of things were activities that might make you vulnerable to blackmail by a foreign agent — things such as sexually-promiscuous behavior, financial mismanagement and drug and alcohol abuse, just to name a few. And while those things may sound like everyday activities for members of Congress, those of us in uniform had higher standards. Back then.

Now, fast forward to more-recent days and the four years I spent investigating the federal government’s use of so-called “credibility assessment” technologies, including the polygraph. During those years, I learned a lot about the system via which U.S. government personnel — especially in Defense and Intelligence positions — are vetted in advance of being granted security clearances. Truth be told, I learned more about the subjects of security clearances and background checks during my investigation than I did while in uniform. I also learned CIA employee-turned spy Ames, NSA contractor-turned Russian house guest Snowden and countless others who engaged in unauthorized dissemination of classified information — and, in many cases, blatant espionage — had had to pass periodic polygraph exams as a condition of their employment with U.S. military and intelligence agencies. And pass the polygraph exams, they did!

Even after I exposed a plethora of serious concerns associated with such practices via the May 2013 release of my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo, leaders of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, led by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. — continue to rely upon the century-old polygraph in the security clearance vetting process and cause me to ask, “WHY?”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The article below first appeared on this site Aug. 7, 2013. Several months later, it vanished — along with nearly 5,000 others written and published since October 2006 — as detailed in a post eight months ago. Today, I rescued it from where it appears on an alternate site in order to share it below with only minor modifications. Please read and share.

Click image above to order a copy of The Clapper Memo.

You’ve probably never wondered why the Department of Defense relies so heavily on the polygraph. Likewise, you’ve probably never thought about how polygraph technology has maintained its place as the only DoD-approved credibility assessment technology. After reading the details in my latest nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo, you’ll know why and how.

On no fewer than three occasions since 2004, top DoD officials — including Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper while he was serving as Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in 2007 — have declared the polygraph to be the only such technology approved for use by DoD personnel. Though many on the front lines, including elite U.S. Special Operations personnel I interviewed for the book, ignored the DoD declarations for as long as they possibly could (see Sample Chapter for details), the Pentagon’s polygraph-only stance remains in place today and is having an often-deadly impact in the form of “Green-on-Blue” attacks against American and Coalition Forces personnel in Afghanistan.

Part of the blame for DoD’s polygraph-only stance lies in the fact that DoD officials withheld critical information from members of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee when they were conducting an inquiry into the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and at other detention facilities in Iraq (i.e., Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca) in 2008. That inquiry resulted in the publication of an unclassified 263-page report, “INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY,” dated November 20, 2008.

That wasn’t all they kept to themselves. DoD officials also withheld critical information about an Air Force talking paper on Relevant/Irrelevant Screening Tests (R/IST) conducted on detainees in the Iraqi theater of operations from Aug. 1, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2006.

Notable among the 50-page document’s results, found after conducting polygraph tests on 768 detainees, was the finding that “detainee personnel are just as likely to have committed the suspected act as not.” That finding stemmed from the fact that 47 percent of the tests yielded “No Deception Indicated” results while 46 percent yielded “Deception Indicated” and seven percent “No Opinion.”

In addition to the fact the tests yielded results showing polygraph no more effective than flipping a coin, a quarter of the polygraph examiners surveyed pointed out problems posed by language barriers.

“The Arabic language itself presents an obstacle due to the different translations and dialect and at times the wrong translation of the question was noted by other interpreters,” one examiner said.

“Many interpreters were not fluent in the written Arabic language, precluding them being used by polygraph,” another reported. “They could not translate questions from English to Arabic and back again.”

“I was fortunate to have had motivated interpreters,” a third responded. “Without them we can’t do the job (without language/culture knowledge).”

A fourth examiner reported, “there was definitely a difference in the level of interpreter experience. Some knew the language and some had a hard time.”

Click image above to order book.

In The Clapper Memo, the 268-page product of an exhaustive four-year investigation, I highlight the fact that a non-polygraph technology was used at GITMO more than 90 times and achieved a success rate — defined as developing new, previously-unknown intelligence which was independently confirmed or confirmed existing information that otherwise could not be verified — of 92 percent despite the fact most exams were conducted using interpreters.

Now, I ask again: Have you ever wondered how polygraph technology has maintained its position as the only Department of Defense-approved credibility assessment technology?

In their endorsement ofThe Clapper Memo, Gold Star parents Billy and Karen Vaughn used words such as “dirty little secrets of politics and greed” and “filthy backroom deals” to describe events and actions that have enabled the polygraph to remain DoD’s credibility assessment technology of choice. The Vaughns lost their son, U.S. Navy SEAL Aaron Carson Vaughn, two years and one day ago in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan that is the subject of a soon-to-be-published book, BETRAYED: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s Father, co-authored by Billy.

Retired U.S. Navy SEAL Capt. Larry W. Bailey, co-founder of Special Operations Speaks and former commander of the U.S. Navy SEALs Basic Underwater Demoliton/SEALs (“BUD/S”) Training Program, describes what I uncovered in The Clapper Memo as “an unconscionable cover-up.”